On Tuesday we reported that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) would be considering whether to once again delay implementation of the Illinois parental notification law.  For a short while on Wednesday, pro-lifers felt victorious: rather than further delay enforcement, as we expected, the IDFPR allowed the law to go into effect.

Unfortunately, the ACLU was able to convince a state court later Wednesday afternoon that the parental notification law is unconstitutional under the state constitution—despite the fact that abortion itself was still illegal in Illinois at the time the constitution was put into place.

So once again, minors in Illinois are left unprotected from the harms of abortion, and parents are left helpless and without knowledge when abortionists perform procedures on their daughters that carry substantial short-term and long-term physical and psychological risks.

But the ACLU’s claims, and the state court’s acceptance of their false claims to date, will be potentially disastrous to all women in Illinois—not just minors.  What the ACLU is arguing is that any commonsense regulation of abortion is unconstitutional under the Illinois constitution.

Pro-abortion forces were unsuccessful this year in passing a state Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) in Illinois.  Had FOCA passed, it would have enshrined abortion on demand into Illinois law, making it nearly impossible to protect women through informed consent laws, parental notification laws, or abortion clinic regulations.

So the ACLU has apparently shifted its strategy.  Rather than working through the legislature—where such decisions belong—the ACLU is using the court system in Illinois to block a law that the majority of Americans and Illinoisans desire.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found a Pittsburg ordinance restricting access to public areas around abortion clinics unconstitutional.  More specifically, the court held the ordinance to be “insufficiently tailored” because it “burdens substantially more speech than necessary” to achieve the City’s stated interest—to prevent “harassment and obstruction of entrances” to hospitals and medical clinics. 

The Pittsburg ordinance combined a “bubble zone” and a “buffer zone.”  The bubble zone extended 100 feet from the entrance of any hospital, medical office or clinic—including public sidewalks—and prohibited anyone from approaching another person within 8 feet without consent to pass a leaflet or handbill, display a sign or engage in oral protest.  The buffer zone essentially cordoned off a 15-foot zone from the entrance of a hospital or health care facility prohibiting anyone to congregate, patrol, picket or demonstrate. 

The Court of Appeals found the zones to be constitutional when considered independent of each other, but when the ordinance combined both zones it overburdened protected speech.  It remanded the case for the City to decide which zone it preferred and directed the District Court to enjoin enforcement of the other zone. 

In making its ruling, the Third Circuit relied on the Supreme Court’s decision involving a similar Colorado Statute, as well as, the First Circuit’s decisions involving bubble zone ordinances around Reproductive Health Care Facilities in Massachusetts.

In 2000, the Supreme Court upheld a similar 100-ft bubble zone in Colorado finding the statute a permissible content-neutral time, place and manner regulation—making it significantly easier for governments to simply forbid free speech in select public areas.  In doing so, the Court failed to call a spade a spade—or in this case a content-based regulation content-based.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics have lobbied local and state governments to pass these “bubble zone” ordinances under the governments’ public safety interest.  Asserting an interest in safe access to “healthcare” (meaning safe access to abortions), these ordinances attempt to restrict the presence of pro-life advocates and all communicative efforts by them around abortion clinics.

These ordinances criminalize any discussion of abortion outside abortion clinics.  They prohibit peaceful demonstrations and they eliminate any effective means to discuss the harms of abortion at the location these harms occur.  In application, they prevent effective sidewalk counseling and significantly hinder the communication of abortion alternatives to women who need and want the information the most.  These laws permit only one viewpoint to reach women entering abortion clinics—the pro-abortion position and those enacting them know it.

Abortion advocates simply cannot win on the merits of their arguments, so they employ tactics to prohibit or restrict the expression of views opposing abortion.  And unfortunately, they are finding some success in pursuing these  “bubble zone” ordinances across the country and in the courts. 

The courts have refused to see these ordinances for what they are—an attempt to silence opposing viewpoints and prohibit the expression of dissent to abortion. Until the courts are willing to recognize the content and viewpoint discrimination occurring through bubble zone ordinances, abortion advocates will continue to employ this new weapon of choice to unconstitutionally silence opposition to abortion.  

Once again the law surrounding abortion seems to require special exceptions to protect the abortion industry from thoughtful and full debate of the harms it causes to women and their unborn children.

Washington, DC — This week a federal district court in South Dakota affirmed that a woman has a right to know that an abortion “terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life, stated, “This is a victory for women and their right to complete and accurate medical information when considering abortion.  Fully informed consent is a bedrock principle of medical care and this principle is especially applicable to abortion.  As the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, an uninformed decision about abortion can lead to devastating consequences.”

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs added, “That Planned Parenthood even challenged this law speaks volumes about their radical and self-serving agenda.  Clearly, they do not want women to have all the information about abortion because they know that the more women know about abortion, the more they choose life.”

The case, Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, involves a challenge to a 2005 South Dakota law that supplemented the state’s long-standing informed consent law.  The court struck down requirements that a woman be informed that abortion increases the likelihood of suicide and that she has an “existing relationship” with the unborn child.  Parties to the suit have indicated that they will appeal.

Media Contact
Heather Smith
202-270-9962
heather.smith@aul.org
##

By Clarke D. Forsythe and Denise M. Burke

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebilius has been nominated to serve as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  If confirmed, she will be in a position to profoundly influence American healthcare including federal and state policies regarding abortion, healthcare rights of conscience, bioethics and biotechnologies, and end-of-life issues.

On balance, Gov. Sebelius’ record demonstrates that she is unfit to serve as HHS Secretary and should not be in a position to make such important policy determinations including:

• Whether to rescind, modify, or retain HHS rules requiring that recipients of certain federal funding certify their compliance with existing federal law supporting healthcare fights of conscience;
• Whether to expand the over-the-counter availability of abortifacients such as “Plan B” (so-called “emergency contraception”) to allow minors to obtain these controversial and dangerous drugs without a prescription or doctor’s involvement; and
• Whether to rescind approval for or, at a minimum, review the safety and efficacy of RU-486 (“the abortion pill”) which has killed at least 7 women in the U.S. since it was approved by the FDA in September 2000.

So, what is her record on these critical issues?

Gov. Sebelius served four terms (1987-1995) in the Kansas House of Representatives and two terms (1995-2003) as the state’s elected Insurance Commissioner.  She was then elected Governor in 2002 and re-elected in 2006.

In the 1980s and 1990s then- State Representative Sebelius voted to weaken or eliminate even such modest abortion-related measures as parental notification, reflection periods and informed consent.

However, her record as Governor is – in substantial part – even more extreme in its support for abortion.

She has routinely opposed or vetoed several abortion-accountability bills, including medically-supported clinic regulation legislation which she vetoed in both 2003 and 2005.  The need for this critical legislation was predicated, in large part, on evidence of shocking conditions in Kansas abortion clinics.  For example, two inspections of the same Topeka abortion clinic discovered fetal remains stored in the same refrigerator as food; a dead rodent in the clinic hallway; overflowing, uncovered disposal bins containing medical waste; unlabeled, pre-drawn syringes with controlled substances in an unlocked refrigerator; improperly labeled and expired medicines; carpeted floor in the surgical procedure room; and visible dirt and general disarray throughout the clinic. Dr. Krishna Rajanna, who operated the unsanitary clinic, also consistently violated the practice guidelines for conscious sedation.

Recently, in 2008, she vetoed a measure that would have strengthened the state’s existing parental notification law by 1) requiring that any adult accompanying a minor show identification, declare in writing their relationship to the minor, and identify the father of the unborn child; 2) requiring the minor to show some form of photo identification providing identity and place of residence; and 3) if the minor chooses to seek a judicial waiver, prohibiting any employee of an abortion provider or clinic from assisting her with the requisite court filings and proceedings.

More shocking, however, is her continuing and unyielding support for late-term abortions including post-viability abortions.  Over the past three years, she has vetoed measures:

• Requiring explicit medical reasons for late-term abortions;
• Requiring abortion providers to report the diagnosis or the nature of the condition which necessitated a post-viability abortion; and
• Permitting injunctive relief for either a completed or about-to-be-performed illegal late-term abortion and adding certain prosecutors (in addition to the Attorney General) to prosecute violations of existing prohibitions on late-term abortions

Interestingly, in the face of these controversial vetoes, Gov. Sebelius honored late-term abortionist George Tiller, 25 friends and employees of Tiller’s abortion clinic, and Nebraska partial-birth abortionist LeRoy Carhart, at the Governor’s mansion in April 2007.  As documented by Associated Press (AP) reporter John Hanna, after the AP filed a request for documents under the Kansas Open Records Act, Gov. Sebelius is shown in photographs, pointing with gratitude to Tiller who is holding a campaign t-shirt featuring her name.  Tiller is currently facing criminal prosecution for 19 counts of illegally performing late-term abortions.  His trial is set to begin on March 16, 2009.

Gov. Sebelius not only honors radical abortion supporters and renegade practitioners at the Governor’s mansion, she also appoints them to important state positions.  For example, she appointed a former abortion clinic “escort” John Carmichael, a militant supporter of Tiller’s Political Action Committee, ProKanDo, to the Human Rights Commission. His name was quietly withdrawn ten months later in May 2008.  See http://kansasmeadowlark.com/2008/05/05/sebelius-withdraws-appointment/.

She also appointed political supporter and abortionist Howard Ellis to serve on the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts after he surrendered his medical license in Missouri rather than face disciplinary charges.  Ellis resigned under pressure, and two months later was charged by the Board with attempting to persuade a physician to falsify records. See http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/2569646.html.

A fair and honest review of her record shows that she has signed some important pro-life legislation since becoming Kansas governor in 2003:

• In 2004, legislation promoting morally-responsible growth of the biotechnology industry.  The state has specifically indicated that the terms “bioscience,” “biotechnology,” and “life sciences” shall not be construed to include 1) induced human abortions or the use of cells or tissues derived therefrom, and 2) any research the federal funding of which would be contrary to federal laws that are in effect.  However, the specific language excluding destructive biotechnologies was included at the insistence of several Kansas legislators and local pro-life groups and did not have the support of Gov. Sebelius who nonetheless signed the legislation.
• In 2005, legislation that required any physician performing an abortion under a girl 14 years or younger to retain fetal tissue and turn it over to Kansas Bureau of Investigation for use in potential prosecutions for sex crimes against children; and legislation providing $300,000 in state funding for abortion alternatives.  Notably, in 2005, Gov. Sebelius used all of her political capital fighting against legislation that sought to mandate medically-supported regulation of abortion facilities.  Specifically, the clinic regulations bill passed both the House and Senate by veto-proof majorities, but was adamantly opposed by Tiller.  Gov. Sebelius vetoed it and later lobbied Democrat legislators to change their vote and not override her veto.  Thus, according to Kansas pro-life groups, she then had little to no political capital available to oppose these measures.
• In 2006, the Pain Patients Bill of Rights which specifically permits opiate dosages necessary to eliminate pain, but did not legalize assisted suicide.
• In 2007, unborn victims of violence protections, criminalizing the homicide of and assault upon unborn children at any stage of gestational development.  However, Gov. Sebelius has a long history of opposing this legislation.  She finally signed it after it was attached to a crime bill that she wanted and after significant pressure from the media and the family of a young woman killed in a murder for hire scheme while she was 8 months pregnant.

However, on balance, Gov. Sebelius’ record demonstrates that she is unfit to serve as HHS Secretary and should not be in a position in influence American healthcare policy for years to come.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 11, 2008

Americans United for Life Releases Eight New Model Legislation & Policy Guides: Twenty-Three Model Legislation & Policy Guides Now Available

Chicago, Illinois — Americans United for Life (AUL) today released its 2009 Model Legislation & Policy Guides. With the addition of eight new guides this year, AUL now offers 23 pieces of model legislation on key issues related to abortion, protection of unborn victims of violence, bioethics, healthcare rights of conscience, and the end-of-life.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO said, “AUL is the leading developer of cutting-edge pro-life legislation that saves lives today and lays the groundwork for a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law.”

New additions to AUL’s library of model legislation include a state legislative resolution opposing the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a prohibition on coerced abortions, and The Child Protection Act—comprehensive legislation to ensure abortion providers report child sexual abuse and prevent the transportation of children across state lines for clandestine abortions.

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs added, “Each year, AUL legal and policy experts provide extensive consulting and support to legislators across the nation, helping to enact protective laws that advance a culture of life. We look forward to partnering with legislators and pro-life allies in 2009 to build on our past successes.”

All of AUL’s Model Legislation & Policy Guides are available at http://www.aul.org/Legislative_Guides

Chicago, Illinois — In response to the U.S. Supreme Court announcement that it will not grant further review to life-related cases from Arizona, Missouri, and New Jersey, Americans United for Life (AUL) made the following statements.

Arizona Life Coalition v. Stanton requires that Choose Life license plates be offered in Arizona.

Denise Burke, AUL’s Vice President & Legal Director said: “This is huge victory for ‘Choose Life’ license plates. By denying review, the Court has affirmed that Arizona and other states cannot deny Choose Life license plates simply because of their pro-life message.”

AUL filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of pregnancy care centers arguing that the Arizona Life Coalition was discriminated against when the state failed to grant its petition for a “Choose Life” license plate. The Ninth Circuit agreed, and the State of Arizona subsequently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

AUL’s amicus brief before the Ninth Circuit is available at
http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/ArizonaLifeCoalitionvStanton.pdf

As cases involving “Choose Life” license plates are still pending in New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma, AUL’s Staff Counsel Mailee Smith remarked, “We are hopeful that the Court’s denial of review will signal to those courts that states cannot discriminate against ‘Choose Life’ license plates.”

In addition, the Court denied review in Roe v. Crawford, a Missouri case where a female prison inmate has successfully argued that she has a right to be transported at state expense for an elective abortion. At issue was a Department of Corrections policy prohibiting such transport.

“By denying review, the Supreme Court is allowing a prisoner to unilaterally demand that she be transported for a controversial elective procedure where the associated costs will ultimately be borne by the taxpayers,” stated AUL Vice President & Legal Director Denise Burke. “The Court is also ignoring the state’s interest in protecting women from the negative consequences of abortion—especially those women who are in custody and under the care of the state.”

AUL filed an amicus brief on behalf of Missouri legislators arguing in favor of the prison policy. The Eighth Circuit sided in part with AUL, agreeing that the denial of elective abortions does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment, and even stating that elective abortions do not constitute medical need. However, the court ultimately agreed with the inmate that her Fourteenth Amendment “right” to abortion means that the state must transport her for abortion.

AUL’s amicus brief before the Eighth Circuit is available at
http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/RoevCrawford.pdf

Finally, the Court also denied review in Acuna v. Turkish, a New Jersey case where an abortionist failed to adequately counsel and answer a woman’s questions before her abortion.

“This case underscores the dire need for comprehensive informed consent laws. Had the abortionist in this case been held to this type of legal requirement, Ms. Acuna would have received the information she needed in making the abortion decision,” stated AUL Staff Counsel Mailee Smith.

To date, New Jersey, 17 other states, and the District of Columbia do not require that women receive any information pertinent to making the abortion decision.

This is the third of a series of posts highlighting various studies that document medical risks from abortion.

Heightened Risk of Pre-Term Birth (PTB)

Ancel et al., “History of Induced Abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in European countries: Results of EUROPOP survey,” 19 Human Reproduction 734 (2004)

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between history of induced abortion and preterm delivery in various parts of Europe, and according to the main cause of preterm birth.

METHODS: We used data from a case–control survey, the EUROPOP study; 2,938 preterm births and 4,781 controls at term from ten European countries were included. Based on national statistics, we distinguished three groups of countries with high, intermediate and low rates of induced abortion.

RESULTS: Previous induced abortions were significantly associated with preterm delivery and the risk of preterm birth increased with the number of abortions. Odds ratios did not differ significantly between the three groups of countries. The extent of association with previous induced abortion varied according to the cause of preterm delivery. Previous induced abortions significantly increased the risk of preterm delivery after idiopathic preterm labour, preterm premature rupture of membranes and ante-partum haemorrhage, but not preterm delivery after maternal hypertension. The strength of the association increased with decreasing gestational age at birth.

CONCLUSIONS: Identifying subgroups of preterm births on the basis of the complications involved in delivery increases our understanding of the mechanisms by which previous induced abortion affects subsequent pregnancy outcomes.

2008 Polling Results

A number of recent polls show that the majority of Americans are pro-life and favor more restrictions on abortion, and that the number of Americans who identify themselves as pro-abortion/pro-choice has dropped to its lowest in the past seven years.

ABC News and Washington Post polling results show not only that the percent of abortion supporters in America has fallen to its seven-year low, but that the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as “pro-life” has risen to tie the percentage of the last time the pro-life percentage peaked during the same seven-year period. Earlier this year in January, an ABC News-Washington Post poll reported a 4% drop in abortion supporters, and a 4% increase in pro-lifers. So, the good news is that support for abortion is way down, and support for abortion restrictions is way up.

Some participants in the ABC News-Washington Post erroneously believed that abortions in cases of rape or incest, or in situations where the mother’s life was endangered constitute the majority of abortions performed in America. The survey failed to inform these participants that abortions in those circumstances are very rare, and account for only 1-2% of all abortions. The great significance of the fact that 98-99% of all abortions are elective procedures cannot be more apparent; it is strange that such an important fact was not relayed to the poll participants. However, despite the absence of this information, the majority of the respondents still favored abortion restrictions, with only 44% wanting all or most abortions to be illegal. Had the respondents been informed of the rarity of abortions in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment, the percentage of Americans who want greater restrictions on abortion may have been much higher.

A Gallup poll conducted this May shows similar results. According to the poll, 71% of Americans want all abortions to be limited to rare circumstances or to be illegal. In response to a question of when abortions should be allowed, a scant 28% took the pro-abortion position.

2007 and 2006 Polling Results

The decline in abortion support has been a steady one. A March 2007 Zogby poll showed overwhelming support for incremental abortion limitations and other life-affirming laws. According to the Zogby poll:

• 69% support the prohibition of using Federal taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions;
• 69% support parental notification for girls 16 or younger;
• 55% support parental notification for girls 18 or younger;
• 56% support a 24-hour waiting period;
• 64% support charging criminals for attacks on pregnant women which result in the killing or injuring of the woman’s unborn child; and
• 69% support prohibitions on using taxpayer dollars for abortions abroad.

In addition to the March 2007 Zogby poll, a November 2007 Newsweek poll reported a 5% increase in the number of pro-life Americans. A CBS News poll also showed a decrease in abortion support for the year 2007. According to the CBS News poll:

• 47% want to prohibit most or all abortions;
• 16% want abortions to be “greatly restricted”;
• 30% want to limit abortions to rare circumstances of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life;
• 12% want abortions to be legal only to save the mother’s life;
• 5% want abortions be illegal in all cases; and
• 31% want abortion to be legal in all cases.

The 2007 CBS News polling results correspond to the 2006 CBS New poll, which reported that 51% of Americans want most or all abortions to be illegal, whereas only 12% want abortions to be legal in all cases.

Conclusion

The trend towards a more pro-life America has been clearly illustrated by the results of national polls over the past years. More and more Americans recognize the importance and need for meaningful abortion restrictions, and are willing to identify themselves as “pro-life” as opposed to “pro-abortion” or “pro-choice. Legislators should pay attention to these trends and facts, as it is their responsibility to pass laws and policies that accurately reflect the views of the Americans people. Laws that expand the right to abortion and increase access to elective abortions are not in line with the views of the American people. On the other hand, laws that ensure that abortions are rare (and, in those rare cases, that abortions are safe), are laws that adequately address the needs and views of the American people. For legislators who are looking to fulfill their responsibility to the American people, there is no time better than now to enact laws restricting abortions and protecting the sanctity of human life.

Last year before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Barack Obama told pro-abortion activists:

“The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”

With a single stroke of the pen, Barack Obama would wipe away virtually every state law on abortion nationwide. Instantly, it will undo thirty-seven years of legal work, research, and educational successes that AUL has accomplished in the 50 states. Put another way: Barack Obama will undermine the very reason we exist — to protect human life state by state.

Sen. Barack Obama has co-sponsored this “Freedom of Choice Act” legislation with 18 other Senators. The bill has the support of 110 Members of Congress, too. The stated aim of this legislation is to “end the abortion wars.”

Let me be clear: to these legislators, “ending the abortion wars” means allowing abortion-on-demand in all nine months of pregnancy for any reason and without any restrictions nationwide. This would eradicate state and federal laws that the majority of Americans support — such as requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions, fully-informed consent, and parental involvement — and prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future.

AUL Vice President & Legal Director Denise Burke has prepared an analysis of the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which we’ve just posted on our website. Please click here to read Denise’s analysis of this horrendous legislation.

On June 30, AUL’s fiscal year comes to a close. In order to end the year with the funds necessary to fight this looming threat, we must raise $269,000 by June 30. AUL, like many organizations, experiences a dip in donations in the summer time. Please, if you are in a position to give a substantial gift, even a sacrificial one, don’t delay.

As life-affirming laws in Michigan increase, the abortion rates in Michigan continue to plummet. Michigan state health officials announced last week that the abortion rate in the state have dropped to a record low since record-keeping began in 1979. The current abortion rate shows a 50% drop since the peak in 1987, and a 3.7% drop from 2006. The Michigan Department of Community Health reported that in 1987 there were 350 abortions for every 1,000 live births. In 2007, the number of abortions dropped to 200 abortions for every 1,000 live births.

The drastic drop in the Michigan abortion rate in 2007 is no surprise. Americans United for Life (AUL) ranked Michigan as the #1 pro-life state for 2007. AUL bases its rankings on the number of pro-life laws being enforced in a state, and the breadth of protection provided by each law.

Michigan currently has a number of women’s health and safety laws in effect, including:

• a comprehensive informed consent for abortion statute;
• a statute providing an option for women to view an ultrasound image of the unborn child;
• parental consent statute for abortions performed on minors;
• minimum health and safety requirements for abortion facilities;
• and a prohibition of the use of public funds and school health coverage plans for abortions.

Michigan law also contains provisions that specifically protect the health and safety of the unborn and the newly born. Michigan law defines the killing of an unborn child as a form of homicide, and defines non-fatal assaults on an unborn child as a crime. In addition, Michigan law requires that infants who survive an abortion and are born alive must be given immediate and appropriate care.

In terms of bioethics, Michigan law bans human cloning, for both reproductive and research purposes. Michigan also bans fetal experimentation and non-therapeutic research on a live human embryo, fetus, or neonate. As for end-of-life issues, Michigan treats physician-assisted suicide as a felony.

Lastly, Michigan law protects the rights of conscience of healthcare providers in the abortion context. Under Michigan law, healthcare professionals and healthcare facilities who object on grounds of conscience may not be forced to participate in the performance of an abortion, and may refrain from participation.

It is no coincidence that the abortion rate in Michigan has dropped to its all-time low, and that Michigan has the best pro-life, incremental legislation in place. Research shows that incremental protections are effective means of lowering the number of abortions performed. Michigan is a concrete example of this conclusion. The effectiveness and importance of passing life-affirming, incremental legislation in the states has been made clear enough. For those interested in making abortion rare, Michigan stands out as a model.

To go to National Right to Life’s article elaborating on congruent abortion data click here.

In our introduction to Defending Life 2008, we argue that “[I]t is in the states where we are winning the battle to create a culture of life and to protect all human life from its earliest stages until its natural end.  Each year, we are making progress incrementally – state by state and law by law.”  State-by-state building blocks for a culture of life has been AUL’s focus for decades, even more so in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and opening the door to more state legislation that protects women and their children from the negative consequences of abortion.

AUL’s focus on the states is driven by our belief that there is where we, in partnership with pro-life Americans, legislators, and policy-makers, are truly making a difference.  Information just released by State Net, a group that actively monitors all legislative activity in the 50 states, confirms our analysis and validates our focus.  According to State Net, abortion is one of most debated topics in 2008, along with illegal immigration and the housing crisis.

Moreover, abortion-related legislation is being actively considered in nearly 80% of the state capitols.  AUL’s independent analysis shows that pro-life measures far exceed pro-abortion measures and that the states continue to make measurable progress toward a culture of life.

The on-going court battle in Illinois over the state’s permanently-enjoined parental notification law has once again brought parental involvement laws to the forefront of the cultural and legal fight against abortion. Accompanying the increasing cultural acceptance of abortion is a proportionate increase in the necessity for parental involvement laws. The promotion of sex-with-no-consequences in America has generated a high demand for abortion, including abortions for minors.  These abortions present a host of issues not present in adult abortions:  (1) the state’s interest in protecting the health and welfare of minors; (2) the state’s interest in protecting the constitutional rights of parents to raise their children; (3) immature minors’ lack of ability to make fully-informed decisions that take into account both immediate and long-range medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of abortion;  and (4) ensuring care that takes into account her medical history.

 In light of the differences between minor and adult abortions, how important are parental involvement laws? How have the courts and legislatures treated parental involvement laws? And in the absence of parental involvement laws, what is at stake for minors and parents?

To read the entire article click here

Gonzales v. Carhart: One Year Later
Letting the People Decide

By Denise M. Burke
Vice President & Legal Director, Americans United for Life

One year ago, the public debate over abortion was irrevocably altered. In the landmark Gonzales v. Carhart decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and, more importantly, abdicated, at least in part, its role as the “National Abortion Control Board.”

In its decision, the Court signaled an increasing willingness to blunt attempts by abortion extremists to use the courts to unilaterally impose their radical agenda on the American public, and an increasing willingness to let the people decide abortion policy. The immediate reaction of activists, state legislators, and the public confirmed this critical shift.

While abortion extremists hastily recycled the hyperbolic rhetoric of the 1970s, legislators and the public increasingly considered prudent responses to the mounting evidence of the negative impact of abortion on women. [more]

Maressa Treat, AUL’s liaison in Oklahoma, has worked with a coalition of pro-life groups and individuals to pass Senate Bill 1878, a sweeping piece of pro-life legislation. The bill now awaits the Governor Brad Henry’s signature.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Oklahoma State Senate
Senator Todd Lamb, R-Edmond

Pro-Life Legislation Passes Senate

State Capitol, Oklahoma City – An omnibus pro-life bill passed the Oklahoma State Senate Wednesday with a bipartisan vote.

Senate Bill 1878 by Senator Todd Lamb, R-Edmond, and Representative Pam Peterson, R-Tulsa, contains several pro-life initiatives, passing the Senate with a vote of 38-10.

By combining various pieces of legislation from Senator Lamb and members of the House of Representatives, Senate Bill 1878 now does the following:

• creates the Freedom of Conscience Act which protects the rights of healthcare providers to refuse to take part in the destruction of human life (SB 1878—Sen. Lamb, Rep. Peterson);
• regulates the use of the dangerous chemical pill RU-486, used when the unborn child is about two months old (HB 2181—Rep. McNiel);
• ensures the mother’s consent to abort is truly voluntary, and protects against coerced abortions (HB 3059—Sen. Williamson, Rep. Hamilton);
• provides a woman with an ultrasound of her unborn child which she can view prior to undergoing the abortion (HB 3144—Sen. Lamb, Rep. Billy);
• cultivates respect for disabled children by banning the wrongful-life lawsuits that claim a baby would have been better off aborted (HB 2814—Sen. Crain, Rep. Sullivan).

“The provisions spelled out in this legislation are critical pro-life advances,” said Senator Lamb. “Working with pro-life members of the House and Senate to protect the sanctity of life and develop this comprehensive bill has been an honor. I am encouraged by the bipartisan support to protect innocent life today in the Senate.”

The next stop for Senate Bill 1878 will be the Governor’s desk for his signature.

In what is shaping up to be a pivotal and unpredictable election year, abortion and its negative impact on women have only infrequently been mentioned as important issues in the Presidential campaign.  However, they remain critical and divisive issues in Congress where competing bills were recently introduced.

On April 2, Senators David Vitter (R-LA), George Voinovich (R-OH), and Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced the Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act.

The measure would require that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a hospital in close vicinity to the abortion facility; that abortion providers notify women of the location of a local hospital where they can receive follow-up medical treatment in the event of post-abortion complications; and that any abortion center receiving federal funding be licensed and comply with current requirements for ambulatory surgery centers.

“It is time that we took the appropriate steps to provide for the safety of the women who undergo abortions,” commented Senator Vitter.

Senator Sam Brownback, a former Republican presidential candidate, added that, “The Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act will provide oversight of the abortion industry, which is badly in need of improved supervision.  Too many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions, and too many women’s lives are at risk.”

In considering this measure, Congress is following the lead of 27 states that currently license and regulate, to varying degrees, facilities providing abortions.

Conversely, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), with the support of national abortion advocacy groups, introduced the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act, targeting the work of thousands of crisis pregnancy centers that offer real alternatives to pregnant women.

The measure would mandate that the Federal Trade Commission create and enforce rules to prohibit deceptive practices that pregnancy centers deny they are using.  Prior versions of this measure never moved past introduction.

“What’s clear in these attacks is that the multi-million dollar abortion industry is growing increasingly frustrated with the success of pregnancy centers, which, unlike abortion providers, offer a wide range of free services to men and women facing unplanned pregnancy and sexual health-related concerns,” remarked Kristen Hansen of CareNet, a national advocacy groups for pregnancy centers.

Peggy Hartshorn, the president of Heartbeat International, argues that, rather than unnecessarily and unfairly targeting the work of pregnancy centers, Congress should instead be looking into problems at abortion centers like Planned Parenthood, which are also federally funded.  Interestingly, this is exactly what the debate over the Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act could accomplish.

For more information about the regulation of abortion facilities, see Abortion Clinic Regulations:  Combating the True “Back Alley”

For more information on the Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act, go to http://www.lifenews.com/nat3834.html

For more information on crisis pregnancy centers, see Pregnancy Resource Centers:  On the Frontlines in the Cause for Life

For more information on Senator Menendez’s attack on the work of crisis pregnancy centers, go to http://www.lifenews.com/nat3833.html

As medical technology advances and the body of medical knowledge increases, the amount of medical information on the ability of a fetus to experience pain continues to grow as well. These scientific advancements have prompted medical, legal, and ethical dialogue on the following questions: At what stage in fetal development can a fetus experience pain, and what impact would this information have on women and abortion law in the United States?

That a fetus can feel pain is an accepted medical fact. However, the question of when a fetus can experience pain has been the subject of some debate over the last two decades.¹ The accepted medical consensus is that the sensory connections for feeling pain are present at 20 weeks gestation.² In fact, there is a steadily increasing body of medical evidence and literature supporting the conclusion that a fetus may feel pain from around 11 to 13 weeks, or even as early as 5.5 weeks.³ Indeed, there is some evidence that fetal suffering may actually be more intense due to the uneven maturation of fetal neurophysiology.⁴ A British survey of neuroscientists showed that 80% of the neuroscientists participating in the survey felt that pain relief should be given to a fetus for abortions after 11 weeks gestation.⁵

In light of such medical evidence on the ability of a fetus to experience pain, it is disturbing that only five states have laws requiring abortion providers to give women information on fetal pain. Arkansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Louisiana require physicians to inform women of the possibility of fetal pain at 20 weeks’ gestation.
Georgia requires abortion providers to inform women orally prior to an abortion that fetal pain information is available on a state-sponsored website.⁶

A woman seeking an abortion has a right to know about the medical fact that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks gestation, and possibly even at 11-13 weeks gestation. In order to facilitate truly informed consent for abortions, abortion providers and the state have a responsibility to ensure that women receive information on fetal neurological development and its ability to feel pain.⁷

States that have not adopted fetal pain legislation should consider doing so. Such legislation should include two basic requirements: (1) that the abortion provider give the pregnancy woman information that unborn children at 20 weeks’ gestation and beyond are fully capable of feeling pain; and (2) that the abortion provider give the pregnant woman the option to administer anesthesia to alleviate or eliminate pain to the fetus. Exceptions to these requirements shall be limited to medical emergencies, a risk to the life or substantial bodily harm to the woman, and if administration of pain relief to the fetus would significantly decrease the possibility of sustained survival of the fetus independent of the mother, with or without artificial support. An ideal fetal pain awareness and prevention law should also contain a requirement that the abortion provider obtain a written certification, signed by the woman, that (1) information on fetal development and fetal pain have been provided to the woman; (2) the woman has been given the choice to have an anesthesia or analgesic administered to the fetus; and (3) the woman has either requested administration of pain-relieving medication, or has opted not to receive administration of pain-relieving medication for the fetus.⁸

Currently, only two states (Virginia and California) are considering fetal pain bills.⁹ In 2007, at least 9 states considered legislation requiring abortionists to provide women with information on fetal pain.¹⁰

Laws informing women regarding fetal pain and fetal development are constitutional under the standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey¹¹ and Gonzales v. Carhart.¹² In Casey, the USSC upheld a Pennsylvania statute requiring an abortion provider to inform the woman seeking an abortion on the availability of state-prepared materials on fetal development and abortion alternatives. The Court held that it is constitutional for a state to require that abortion providers offer prepared materials on fetal development, in furtherance of the state’s legitimate interests in protecting developing fetal life and the well-being of the woman.¹³

The USSC reaffirmed this conclusion when it restored Casey’s “undue burden” or “substantial obstacle” standard in Gonzales. The Court’s application of the Casey standard in Gonzales “suggests that broader regulations of abortion that make medical sense will be upheld, especially if they are designed to provide women with more information about the nature, risks, and alternatives to abortion.”¹⁴ Fetal pain laws clearly fall within the category of abortion regulations on fetal development allowed under Casey and Gonzales.

The best way for states to pass laws on fetal pain awareness and prevention is by amending their existing informed consent statutes for abortion to require abortion providers to give women information on fetal pain, along with the option to request pain relief for the fetus during the abortion procedure. Arkansas and Oklahoma took this approach in their adoptions of fetal pain legislation.

Medical information on the fetal neurological development and a fetus’ consequent ability to feel pain is a concern of women considering abortion, ¹⁵ and providing this information is necessary for a woman to make a fully-informed choice on whether or not to obtain an abortion. Women have the right to all available medical information regarding fetal development, and a right to know the consequences of their abortion decision — specifically, that abortion may cause fetal pain.¹⁶
In conclusion, to protect women’s rights, facilitate informed consent, and to further state interests in the well-being of women and developing human life, legislators should work to introduce and enact legislation on fetal pain awareness and prevention.

2. Report of the Medical Research Council Group on Fetal Pain, at 3.3. Available at (http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC002413) (last accessed March 20, 2008).

3. Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience. Human sentience before birth. Rawlinson report. London: HMSO, 1996. See also T.S. Collett, Fetal Pain Legislation: Is It Viable? 30 Pepp. L. Rev. 161 (2003), at 169.

4. Frank White, M.D. Are We Overlooking Fetal Pain and Suffering in Abortion? American Society of Anesthesiologists Newsletter, Volume 65, October 2001. Available at http://www.asahq.org/Newsletters/2001/10_01/white.htm (last accessed March 20, 2008).

5. Id.

6. Denise M. Burke, Fetal Pain Awareness and Prevention, Model Legislation & Policy Guide for the 2008 Legislative Year, in Defending Life 2008: Proven Strategies for a Pro-Life America, available at http://aul.org/?p=Defending_Life#Abortion (last accessed March 20, 2008).

7. Id. See also, Frank White, supra at note 4 (”We have a responsibility to give proper informed consent on these issues.”).

8. Id.

9. VA H.B. 1556; CA A.B. 1009.

10. Supra at note 6. (In 2007, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, and Virginia considered legislation requiring abortionists to provide women with information on fetal pain.)

11. 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

12. 127 S.Ct. 1610 (2007).

13. Casey at 880, 882-883.

14. Clarke D. Forsythe, Gonzales v. Carhart: The potential impact of the United States Supreme Court’s 2007 decision. Available at http://aul.org/Gonzales_v_Carhart (last accessed March 20, 2008).

15. T.S. Collett, Fetal Pain Legislation: Is It Viable? 30 Pepp. L. Rev. 161 (2003), at 102.

16. Id. at 184.

South Dakota joined the ranks of eleven other states this week and enacted legislation requiring that a woman considering abortion be given an opportunity to see an ultrasound of her unborn child.

This is yet another victory in minimizing the effect of Roe v. Wade. Countless women have changed their minds after seeing their unborn children in ultrasounds.

In addition, South Dakota’s statute contains a provision that requires abortion practitioners to report the number of times a woman was shown or declined to see the ultrasound and what percentage of women in each category ultimately had an abortion. Such information will demonstrate just how effective ultrasound legislation is in decreasing the number of abortions state-wide.

Other states mandating some form of ultrasound requirement include Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wisconsin.

To date, none of these state laws have been challenged in court—abortion proponents know that such laws are constitutionally sound. But that is not to say that bills such as that passed in South Dakota are not challenged in the legislative process; Planned Parenthood and its cronies know just how effective ultrasound legislation is. Fortunately, the legislators and governor in South Dakota did not buy into their rhetoric.

Other states considering ultrasound legislation in 2008 are Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.

On Tuesday, February 19, the Missouri House Committee on Healthcare Policy considered HB 1831, a bill enhancing Missouri’s informed consent before abortion statute. In addition to requiring that women be informed of the medical risks of abortion, HB 1831 also requires that women receive information on the availability of ultrasound, as well as information on fetal pain.

Mailee R. Smith, Staff Counsel at AUL, was the lead witness on behalf of the constitutionality of the bill. Smith outlined that the provisions in HB 1831 have all been explicitly upheld by the United States Supreme Court. AUL’s message was strong: HB 1831 is simply Supreme Court precedent in legislative form. You can read the full testimony at http://www.aul.org/MO_HB_1831

The Senate Judiciary Committee is considering an identical bill. AUL has presented written testimony to that committee as well.

It appears likely that HB 1831 will move out of both committees largely in tact — making women one step closer to more adequate protection in the State of Missouri.